jskains Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I love the entire concept. But it seems some folks are desperate to hide the doctrine.Joseph Smith:"You have got to learn to become Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have done.""God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and ... God ... (were) to make himself visible ... if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves in all the person, image, and the very form as a man."I mean, I love this doctrine. And the leadership has backed it up, but then we seem to get into years where we kinda downplay it. And I worry that the reason is because we want to appease or not deal with the arguments.It seems rather simple. Heavenly father was like us. He did everything He had to and became a God Himself, taking on the role of running our Universe. He is the ONLY God of our universe, and the only one He knows of here. And we would carry on that tradition after the Earth goes through its phases.I think it is not very hard to get this idea, and Joseph Smith was very active in this teaching..And I don't see a problem with it... I think Evangelical ideologies that God was just always there is silly and nonsensical. I think Joseph Smith presented a revelation that filled a lot of theological Gaps, especially with the Hebrews being polytheistic.... and references to the Hebrew God being the God of Gods......Sorry, I just don't see a reason to hide this one and I find it silly to do so.JMS 4
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 jskains:I have no real problem with many of the concepts presented in the KFD. But it has never been established as a source document for LDS doctrine.Who knows. Maybe in the next General Conference it will be.Whether there be one God or many Gods there is only one God with which we have anything to do with.
jskains Posted November 2, 2011 Author Posted November 2, 2011 jskains:I have no real problem with many of the concepts presented in the KFD. But it has never been established as a source document for LDS doctrine.Who knows. Maybe in the next General Conference it will be.Whether there be one God or many Gods there is only one God with which we have anything to do with.Well, I believe Joseph Smith to be a Prophet. So I consider it doctrine. And to ignore the influence in the general theology is intentionally closing one's eyes.JMHO
cinepro Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 BYU Studies published an "amalgamated" version of the discourse where they incorporated elements from all the records of the speech. It is very interesting for some of the ways things are presented...The Amalgamated King Follett Discourse
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 jskains:I too accept JS as a Prophet, a very important one at that. However whatever the merits of JS or his KFD, the KFD has never been accepted by the Church as doctrine, and binding on the Church. There certainly are ideas within the KFD that are doctrinal, I stand by them and am willing to be bound to them. There are also certain ideas that need further Revelation explaining them before the Church can make the entire KFD doctrine IMNTBHO.
Senator Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Well, I believe Joseph Smith to be a Prophet. So I consider it doctrine. And to ignore the influence in the general theology is intentionally closing one's eyes.JMHOWhen are the LDS going to finally believe what the church teaches; that the current prophet is more important than any past prophet, Joseph Smith included.If the current prophet says that there's not much known about it, and that it isn't taught much, then that's your lead for here and now. Embrace it!
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Senator:True to a certain extent. What we don't accept is that any one mortal man determines what is the doctrine of the Church.
Kiviuq Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Why do so many discussion here come down to determining what is or isn’t doctrine?
stevedallas Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 This is one of my biggest issues. I have a lot of problems with a God who claims he never changes and has never changed to actually have changed into a God. I have a problem with a God who claims there is no other God and who knows no other Gods to be one of many Gods.And I am not sure what is more difficult to believe: that God was always there as he is, or that he is one of a long line of Gods that HAD to have started with a FIRST God who appeared from nothing.I am not arguing or fighting here. I am discussing one of my troublesome issues.
diglot Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) And I am not sure what is more difficult to believe: that God was always there as he is, or that he is one of a long line of Gods that HAD to have started with a FIRST God who appeared from nothing.While I do hold to the mainstream Christian concept of God (e.g. God is incorporeal, inhabits eternity, exists outside of creation, etc), I do see why some people may find that illogical and difficult to understand. But I also find the LDS view of God to be just as difficult and illogical to comprehend.I think that there are inherent difficulties in accepting any concept of God; its like a bug trying to comprehend anthropology. Edited November 2, 2011 by diglot 2
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 stevedallas:The Bible is replete with instances where God has changed his mind. But that is not the same as he(himself) changes. He was, is, and will be always our God.See Corithians 1:5-6
CV75 Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I love the entire concept. But it seems some folks are desperate to hide the doctrine.Joseph Smith:"You have got to learn to become Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have done.""God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and ... God ... (were) to make himself visible ... if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves in all the person, image, and the very form as a man."I mean, I love this doctrine. And the leadership has backed it up, but then we seem to get into years where we kinda downplay it. And I worry that the reason is because we want to appease or not deal with the arguments.It seems rather simple. Heavenly father was like us. He did everything He had to and became a God Himself, taking on the role of running our Universe. He is the ONLY God of our universe, and the only one He knows of here. And we would carry on that tradition after the Earth goes through its phases.I think it is not very hard to get this idea, and Joseph Smith was very active in this teaching..And I don't see a problem with it... I think Evangelical ideologies that God was just always there is silly and nonsensical. I think Joseph Smith presented a revelation that filled a lot of theological Gaps, especially with the Hebrews being polytheistic.... and references to the Hebrew God being the God of Gods......Sorry, I just don't see a reason to hide this one and I find it silly to do so.JMSBecause there isn’t much that has been said about it, I think that if the teaching that “God was once as we are now”, were to be addressed beyond the short quotes found in lesson manuals, it might be framed like the statements about tithing and sound something like this: "For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that to the best of our understanding, Joseph Smith taught that God Himself was once as we are now. No one is justified in teaching anything other than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he needs to do, if anything, beyond keeping sacred covenants to know more than this, if anything, of God’s background in order to obtain exaltation." 2
Cobalt-70 Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I too accept JS as a Prophet, a very important one at that. However whatever the merits of JS or his KFD, the KFD has never been accepted by the Church as doctrine, and binding on the Church. There certainly are ideas within the KFD that are doctrinal, I stand by them and am willing to be bound to them. There are also certain ideas that need further Revelation explaining them before the Church can make the entire KFD doctrine IMNTBHO.True, the King Follet sermon has never become fully canonized. However, it is by far the most influential sermon that Joseph Smith ever gave, and it has had quasi-canonical status. Mormons who heard the sermon were profoundly affected. Near the end of his life at the Salt Lake Temple dedication in 1893, for example, Pres. Wilford Woodruff said that in all his experience in the church, "only on one occasion had he felt the spirit of God more powerfully manifest than during the dedication of this Temple--that was when the Prophet Joseph delivered his last address. The Prophet in that instance stood on his feed three hours and the spirit of God was present like a flame of fire." Van Hale wrote a good overview of the doctrinal impact of the sermon in BYU Studies: http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5322.
zerinus Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 While I do hold to the mainstream Christian concept of God (e.g. God is incorporeal, inhabits eternity, exists outside of creation, etc), I do see why some people may find that illogical and difficult to understand. But I also find the LDS view of God to be just as difficult and illogical to comprehend.The LDS view of God is the one taught in the standard works. That is where the doctrine of the Church officially resides. Nothing supersedes that as a repository of Church doctrine.
zerinus Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 True, the King Follet sermon has never become fully canonized. However, it is by far the most influential sermon that Joseph Smith ever gave, and it has had quasi-canonical status. Mormons who heard the sermon were profoundly affected. Near the end of his life at the Salt Lake Temple dedication in 1893, for example, Pres. Wilford Woodruff said that in all his experience in the church, "only on one occasion had he felt the spirit of God more powerfully manifest than during the dedication of this Temple--that was when the Prophet Joseph delivered his last address. The Prophet in that instance stood on his feed three hours and the spirit of God was present like a flame of fire." Van Hale wrote a good overview of the doctrinal impact of the sermon in BYU Studies: http://byustudies.by...aspx?title=5322.Your agenda driven posts are becoming positively annoying. You do not appear to have anything useful to contribute to this message board.
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Zerinus:I don't mind explaining what I believe to anyone.
jskains Posted November 2, 2011 Author Posted November 2, 2011 This is one of my biggest issues. I have a lot of problems with a God who claims he never changes and has never changed to actually have changed into a God. I have a problem with a God who claims there is no other God and who knows no other Gods to be one of many Gods.And I am not sure what is more difficult to believe: that God was always there as he is, or that he is one of a long line of Gods that HAD to have started with a FIRST God who appeared from nothing.I am not arguing or fighting here. I am discussing one of my troublesome issues.That would be a complete misunderstanding of the Nature of God. The idea is that God is more of a Title, and when Elohim took over the title of God, the entity as a God is never changing.It is an extremely powerful doctrine that has its fingers in EVERY aspect of the LDS theological track, which is wrapped around the preexistence, the concept that Jesus took the Title of God during the Old Testament era, and the entire theology of Eternal Progression. Again, to ignore these fundamental concepts in the Church is not only flawed, but unnecessary.There is NO reason this is a harmful theology. And I think an understanding of the theology of the Hebews and other cultures of the time reveal a far more complex picture of God than presented by the current EVs.Understand I am being pro-LDS as I think this is an awesome concept and doctrine. 1
altersteve Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 That would be a complete misunderstanding of the Nature of God. The idea is that God is more of a Title, and when Elohim took over the title of God, the entity as a God is never changing.It is an extremely powerful doctrine that has its fingers in EVERY aspect of the LDS theological track, which is wrapped around the preexistence, the concept that Jesus took the Title of God during the Old Testament era, and the entire theology of Eternal Progression. Again, to ignore these fundamental concepts in the Church is not only flawed, but unnecessary.There is NO reason this is a harmful theology. And I think an understanding of the theology of the Hebews and other cultures of the time reveal a far more complex picture of God than presented by the current EVs.Understand I am being pro-LDS as I think this is an awesome concept and doctrine.I have never heard a Church leader say that "God" is a title that is taken over by someone else. That doesn't sound right to me. I believe in eternal progression, and I believe that Heavenly Father goes through physical changes to progress from one plane of existence to another, just as Christ does and just as we must, but I don't believe that Heavenly Father has "ancestors," and it seems clear to me that when Joseph first introduced this idea, he touched on it briefly and did so cautiously, and seemed to be using his own reasoning. It's always been made clear that our Father in Heaven is the God of all other gods in existence. I also don't believe that we will create and rule over worlds of our own and populate them with our own spirit children, whom we will save with our own "Only Begotten Sons." That's an idea that I'm extremely uncomfortable with. I believe the D&C when it says that the exalted children of God will "inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths." It doesn't say that we will create them. We will "rule over" kingdoms and principalities, be seated in thrones, and have all powers and dominions that we inherit from our Heavenly Father, and it is all done under His direction, in a hierarchical fashion, probably with priesthood offices and callings that God will ordain us to in order to assist in continuing His work. Perhaps our children will pass through mortality on future worlds, as Joseph Smith taught elsewhere, but I don't believe we will be "gods" to be worshiped.All I'm trying to say, basically, is that I think too many people (LDS and non-LDS) severely misunderstand what Joseph said in the King Follett sermon. He did not say that God the Father was once a sinner on a world like ours, as some people infer, only that He, like Jesus Christ, somehow, somewhere, passed through mortality and was then exalted to a higher plane of existence. Nothing more than that. 2
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 altersteve:As God, and the rest of us, are eternal. Ancestors would be a "relative" term.
BCSpace Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) I have no real problem with many of the concepts presented in the KFD. But it has never been established as a source document for LDS doctrine.Who knows. Maybe in the next General Conference it will be.Yet the concept that jskains mentioned, that God is an exalted man and was once mortal, is established and official doctrine. Edited November 2, 2011 by BCSpace
Log Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Yet the concept that jskains mentioned, that God is an exalted man and was once mortal, is established and official doctrine.Is it? Is it really?
cinepro Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Is it? Is it really?In the apologetic/internet sense that anything and nothing can be doctrine (at the same time), then no, it isn't. In the idea that the Church teaches things about God and stuff and that if those teachings come from Prophets and Apostles and are emphasized over the years in curriculum and official Church publications, then yes, really.
altersteve Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 The Church teaches that God passed through mortality just like Jesus Christ did, not that He was once exactly like us (sinful, imperfect, etc.). He was still God both during and before His mortality. 1
Log Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 The Church teaches that God passed through mortality just like Jesus Christ did, not that He was once exactly like us (sinful, imperfect, etc.)Does it? Does it really?
cinepro Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 The Church teaches that God passed through mortality just like Jesus Christ did, not that He was once exactly like us (sinful, imperfect, etc.). He was still God both during and before His mortality.CFR.
Recommended Posts